About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
WETA 26
LANGUAGE
English 26
Search Results 0 to 25 of about 26 (some duplicates have been removed)
in farm subsidies and the pentagon budget, plus a minimum 30% tax on million- dollar incomes. republicans are expected to oppose the measure because of the tax increase. house speaker john boehner said the burden is on president obama to break the deadlock. >> the sequester, i don't like it and no one should like it, but the sequester is there because the president insisted that it be there. where is the president's plan to replace the sequester that he insisted upon? >> sreenivasan: white house officials warned that letting the across-the-board cuts take effect would be disastrous. for his part, the president traveled to decatur, georgia, selling his plan to make pre- school available to all four- year-olds. standing before a group of teachers, he joked that what works with pre-schoolers might work with congress. >> maybe we need to bring the teachers up... ( laughter ) you know, every once in a while have some quiet time. time out. ( laughter ) >> sreenivasan: if the sequester takes effect, it will mean $85 billion in spending reductions over the next seven months shared equally between
that judgment to history. >> chuck hagel and the battle for the pentagon. >> the good news is, for the first time in many years, republicans and democrats seem ready to tackle this problem together. >> the immigration problem. has somebody been reading exit polls? >> too many children are dying. too many children. >> also, the fight over -- over guns. >> law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violence or deranged criminals. >> the word on hillary in 2016. will she or won't she? >> i have no plans to run. >> thursday was not a good day for chuck hagel, president obama's choice to be his next offensive material. his old pal and fellow vietnam veteran john mccain jumped all over him for opposing the search --the surge in iraq. >> were you correct or not to say that the surge would be the month dangerous foreign policy blunder since vietnam? correct or incorrect? yes or no? are you going to answer the question? the question is, where you're right or wrong? that is a pretty straightforward question. i would like for you to answer whether you were right or wrong, and then you
was aimed at defense department workers at the pentagon and around the world. secretary panetta sent them a written message, as he left for a nato defense ministers meeting in brussels. in it, he said there are limited options for coping with the looming across-the-board cuts. and, he said: >> on our civilians it will be catastrophic. >> woodruff: within hours, top pentagon officials were out, saying employees could lose one day of work per week for 22 weeks. civilians will experience a 20 percent decrease in their pay between late april and september. as a result, many families will be forced to make difficult decisions on where their financial obligations lie. >> reporter: the furloughs could start in late april and save roughly $5 billion. uniformed personnel at war would be exempt, but in a letter to congress, panetta wrote that the spending cuts will slow training and the procurement of weapons. the result, he said, will be a hollow force. the nation's top military leader had said as much last week at a senate hearing on the automatic cuts. chair of the joint chiefs of staff, general
and i were talk a moment ago the pentagon. the pentagon gets hit harder than domestic departments. >> so much of the dialogue is finger pointing. who do you this will get blamed? >> the blame for the sequester is ridiculous. the congress passed. the president signed it. they all own it. they all got it. >> that was the point. >> that was the point. both parties consenting adults, knew that they were designing something that was designed to be so bad that it produced a deal. it's just that they haven't been able to get to the deal. in terms of who is winning the message ordinarily, it's a little hard to say. president obama has got the high side. he won the election. the public tends to support if you lay out all of the policy positions support where he's coming from, taxing the rich. but the idea of cutting spending is a very popular idea and republicans are riding that at a moment. gwen: except this new pew research showed that people weren't much for anything. it was hard to know whether it was because they don't like the idea of a sequester or because they don't believe washington --
. and this was a taskforce that was set up in the pentagon. and it was designed to track war crimes cases in the wake of the exposure of the my lai massacre. >> where 500 men, women, and children were murdered by american g.i.s. >> that's right. the military basically, what they wanted to do was make sure they were never caught flatfooted again by an atrocity scandal. so in the army chief of staff's office, there were a number of army colonels who worked to track all war crimes allegations that bubbled up into the media that gis and recently returned veterans were making public. and they tracked all these. and whenever they could, they tried to tamp down these allegations. >> your book is very important to me. i was there at the white house in the 1960s when president johnson escalated the war. my own great regret is that i didn't see the truth of the war in time didn't see what was happening there. and yet, as i said, you didn't even come to the experience until after it was all over. and yet you have become obsessed with telling this story. you had no money. you had no advance. you didn't, you had
nations and people in the pentagon can count votes too. we've never had a defense secretary with this many opposing votes. now this is something he can shake off, but it's going to take some time. >> woodruff: that's right. i mean he has the fewest confirming volts of any defense secretary since the job was created. mark thompson, how does that affect his ability to do his job? >> well, it will depend. it will affect it in a big way if he acts as he did in his con for megs hearing which by all accounts he did not do well. conversely, i talked to people in the pentagon. the lower in ranks you go, the more they like this guy. the more they like the sense that an enlisted man is going to run the building. if you can use that as a springboard he's facing immense challenges from sequestration to afghanistan to a nuclear iran but it's an opportunity for him to seize the moment. if he does, people will forget this pretty quickly i think. >> woodruff: what about the sour relations or whatever lingering effect there is from this loud vote of no confidence from republicans in the senate? does that a
. >> that was one of the first stories i ever covered in the pentagon. it was female aviators? i did a story this year on a female fighter pilot, the first female fighter pilot in the air force that is now the first female fighter wing commander. i flew with her in her f-15 and to see her go through this, opening it to ground combat is stunning. i was just stunned when secretary panetta said the joint chiefs supported that. i think it is a challenge going forward and the military has to take this slow and they will take it slow. i don't think they can lower physical standards or you end up with problems. what people don't understand is part of the reason having women in combat is so important to females, having the opportunity is leadership positions. you have seen amazing women over the years. and have been awarded silver stars because they are in the middle of a fire fight. this is a great opportunity going forward. tavis: chuck hagel is in line to take that job, will he be? >> i predict he probably will be. i don't think any of us disagree, he far and notme this have that happen. tavis: w
solvent. >> at one pentagon official says, "it really scares the hell out of meat." does it scare you? >> we are not greece, but you can get to be them with silliness like this and no responsibility. evan is right. the president is leading, but not in the direction that he wants. he is leaving to blame the republicans, which i suspect he will succeed in. the republicans seem to have this affinity for suicide diving. they will get blamed. the only answer here is to get together and obama thinks he has them on the ropes. republicans cannot seem to get it together. >> we just heard dr. rand paul said the sequestration was the president's idea. wasn't it? >> who cares. it's a bad idea on both sides. and the the president's responsibility. this is typical washington. it is the president's responsibility more than anyone else's, particularly a second term president. it's his responsibility to rise above this. he's not doing it. >> i'm not sure you something. this was the cover of "the new york daily news." the speaker of the house complain that he had to exit air force one by the rear door,
governa -- america's bility or perhaps lack of governability? >> pentagon is talking about having less aircraft carrier presence. the foreign-policy establishment could see some of its dollars cut. foreign aid is never the favorite thing of the congress. some of those accounts could be pressured. a lot of these cuts ordered by sequestration are essentially dumb. they are acrsooss the board. certain things are exempt. ibo who run these cabinet departments often lack the authority just -- people who run these cabinet departments often lack the authority did say we are going -- authority to say we are going to keep this or that. us toes it hard for represent ourselves as a model that ought to be in related by others -- to be emulated by others. >> what do you hear when you talk to leaders around the world, not just about sequestration -- what are people saying to you? .> all those things america's inability to tackle its deficit and debt. able shake their heads. at the end of the day, -- people shake their heads. because at the end of the day, they are dependent on the united states. the
senator hagel? the question ask were you right or wrong? gwen: the president's pentagon choice finds hit -- his worst enemies in his own party. covering the week, david wessel of "the wall street journal." vaughn johnson of national joran. kirn tumulty of the national post and doyle mcmanus of the national times. >> award-winning reporting and nanls -- analysis, covering history as it happens. live in our nation's capital, this is "washington week with gwen ifill and national journal." corporate funding for "washington week" is provided by -- >> this rock has never stood still. since 1875 we've been there for our clients through good times and bad. when their needs changed we were there to meet them. through the years from insurance to investment management from real estate to retirement solutions, we've deneded pew ideas for the financial challenges ahead. this rock has never stood still, and that's one thing that will never change. prudential. >> additional corporate funding for "washington week" is provided by boeing. additional funding is provided by the annenberg foundation, the cor
: for the first time, pentagon leaders said today they had supported arming the rebels in syria. defense secretary leon panetta and general martin dempsey chair of the joint chiefs said they made that recommendation to president obama. panetta told a senate hearing that, in the end, the president decided against sending in arms. instead, the u.s. has provided only humanitarian aid to the rebels. secretary panetta also defended the military's response to the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi, libya. the assault killed ambassador chris stevens and three other americans. panetta testified there'd been no specific warning of an imminent attack, so u.s. forces were too far away to respond. >> the united states military, as i've said, is not and frankly should not be a 911 service capable of arriving on the scene within minutes to every possible contingency around the world. the u.s. military has neither the resources nor the responsibility to have a firehouse next to every u.s. facility in the world. >> sreenivasan: republican senator john mccain of arizona argued the military could have deploye
, if you will. we do have an opportunity to talk to several people within the pentagon and what we found we were very disappointed by was that they weren't taking the steps that they really needed to take to address this problem. >> brown: is this for you an act of... is it journalism? is it art? i mean it's film making. how do you see what your doing? >> well, i guess i see myself as an artist. but as an artist i think you take on the greatest challenge you can. to put all these things together, the art, film making, journalism into one, i see it as an artistic enterprise but at the same time, of course, when you're dealing with this kind of subject, you have to be very journalistically precise which we were. but it's a challenge. i mean this film was being made actually for two audiences. one was for the film making audience. it's been very successful. it was nominated for academy award. it's won many audience awards but it was also made for policy makers in washington d.c. >> brown: you had them in mind absolutely. i remember cut by cut we'd be thinking, this will play to an audience but
and pentagon officials confirmed it today. the decision marks the next phase in the administration's plan to end the u.s. combat role in afghanistan by 2014. there are currently 66,000 american troops in afghanistan, down from a peak of 100,000. a sharply divided senate armed services committee moved today to approve chuck hagel for defense secretary. the party line vote on the former senator was 14-11. his fellow republicans challenged hagel's past statements and votes on israel, iraq and iran's nuclear weapons program, while democrats argued hagel was more than qualified. >> i just believe that the testimony of senator hagel was not reassuring. i don't think he did come across clear and convincing, that he understood our policies toward iran. and the fact that you don't understand why and you can't clearly articulate the bad news for america for the iranians' nuclear capability sharply and to the point is unnerving and for the times in which we live. >> the concern that i have is the suggestion that this man who has served his country really since he was a young man and enlisted in viet
is that they need to start furloughing people in about april. the defense, the pentagon says this week that it was issuing furlough notices to about 800,000 civilian employees. to prepare to be furloughed. so in the case of the pentagon, you know, that means that destroyers, various aircraft carriers will not deploy to places like the persian gulf and other theatre, and that's a big effect on local economies, in areas like rampton rode, virginia, san diego. and it's an effect affect that will be clearly felt on contractors who rely on navy contracts for shipbuildings. so i think the affects will be gradual. no one can really tell when the agencies will sort of pull the plug. and as i said, the cuts nay not take effect for that long. >> suarez: you said at the outset there is a political dimension to this. of course as we enter the final week there most certainly is what is the they are telling opinion researchers if friday comes and goes without a deal? >> well, i think part of the problem is that many americans don't really understand what sequestration is. it's become this obsession
. >> tm:o you also like gentex, they make dimming rearview mirrors and the rearview face pentagon cameras. is this a play on autos? >> tas play on ought owners but it's also a play on againtex, which has a competitive advantage. they have more than 80% market share and only about 20% of companies have auto dimming mirrors right now. there's some regulation that could help them as well. >> tom: then it's got the rearview-facing cameras which i have to admit make me sea sick when i use them but they're awfully helpful in the driveway. >> completely agree on both fronts. >> tom: do you have any positioning in the two stocks we mentioned here tonight? >> i do not. >> tom: we have energy and auto parts with heather brilliant, the global equity research director at morning star. >> susie: over a 100 million people are expected to watch the baltimore ravens battle the san francisco 49ers in the superbowl. many people don't just tune in for the football, but also the commercials. so, advertisers are going all out to make sure their spots get a lot of buzz, even before the big game. erika miller r
, because given the kind of changes you are talk pentagon, people paying online, for example. where is this headed? does the american public have to get used to a lesser service and perhaps at some point the end of the postal service? >> no, not at all. we think the future is very bright, as long as you take the steps to get the financein order. our plan-- our plan has us getting back in the black and paying the debt down. now, will there be changes? absolutely. some of the changes we discussed already. we have already made plenty of changes. since the year 2000, this organization, the postal service has reducedly the head count-- head count, payroll, not jobs or job descriptions, payroll-- by 305,000 employees, 193,000 since 2008. we have-- our people do a great job. they're very productive. we have done anything and everything in our power to try to catch up to the loss that we've got in volume. people say, suggest we raise prices dramatically. that chase more volume away. we are trying to take a very business-like approach. we think it's a win-win. everybody has a little skin in
, the agencies, primarily the pentagon and the c.i.a. nominate people to be on the list. and it goes through what the white house promises is a very rigorous process of review to determine if those people should or should not be on the list. we don't know exactly what the standard is. but it involves a number of criteria, including whether the host country, the country in which this person, particular person is cooperative or not vis-À-vis capturing the person. in any event, they have a standard. names are nominated. it goes through an interagency process. and finally it makes it to the president. and he makes the final decision who is or is not on the list. does that sound like what you understand? >> i think that's certainly what the government has said happens. and, of course, this is the problem is that the only thing that we ever know about the counterintelligence stuff over the last 10 or 11 years has been, you know, what the government has been forced to say, what journalists have been able to find out, or what human rights organizations like ours have been able to find out on the ground.
department or the pentagon are there. i think at some point the united states government and the white house have to make a decision that syria is an actual danger to america's national security interests. it is not something we can wash our hands from. and there are serious dangers and implications to the united states and the president actually to ask its national security team for realistic options that then he request gather his team and debate and decide about. there hasn't, i think, been a serious debate even within the united states government as to what might be our three top options what are the costs and benefits of each. and if we were to pursue one of them, how would we do it. >> is there a legitimate argument that this destabilizes turkey to some degree, an important country to the united states, and a nato ally, andrew. >> absolutely. thousands of syrians go over the border into turkey every day. and it's very easy for pkk fighters, kurdish fighters to meld into those refugees, to go across the border and carry out terrorists attacks inside of turkey. no government in turkey ca
to that point, all of a sudden we've got 3,000 dead americans, the trade towers are taken out, the pentagon's been hit. if it hadn't been for the folks on 93 they'd have taken out the white house or the capitol on washington, d.c. worst attack in our history. worse than pearl harbor by far. and it was our job to make certain it didn't happen again. we were concerned for a couple of rps, partly because the expectation was there would be a follow on attack, nearly everybody believed it. but we also received intelligence that al qaeda was trying to get their hands on deadlier weapons. >> rose: do you regret nothing about the aftermath in terms of how we -- >> regarding 9/11? >> rose: everything that we did and that you were and the president were at the center of the response to 9/11. look back and say "we regret nothing"? >> that's my view. >> rose: none? >> correct. >> rose: you know this has been debated, too. >> sure. >> rose: were we prepared for the consequences after saddam was overthrown? >> well, that was the second proposition. you asked me about the aftermath of 9/11, the policies w
critical american infrastructure the pentagon is planning a range of defensive measures including a massive expansion of its own signer security force. joining me to discuss the developing background is david sanger of the "new york times." he cowrote today's front page story on the subject. joining us later is dune lawrence of bloomberg businessweek if and michael riley of bloomberg. they are learning everything they could. >> so far it's clear they've been into those systems it's not clear they've ever done anything to them. >> rose: why -- >> that's the remarkable question charlie. always the issue is intent and the degree to which the political leadership in china actually is knowledgeable about this and to what degree of control it has over it. because chinese command and control is not always what we image it from afar. in this case, unit 61398 which is the major cyber intelligence unit for the pla but not their own cyber operation. sort of their equivalent of the national security agency or our cyber command which is located at the national security agency in fort mead. >> rose: c
Search Results 0 to 25 of about 26 (some duplicates have been removed)